That wouldn’t surprise me, for yet another issue during the 90s that isn’t touched on was the split between those who were fighting to reestablish he conservative roots within the SBC, and those who were trying to make sure those roots included Calvinism. Mohler and Moore were, of course, principle players in moving SBTS toward a Calvinist foundation (well Mohler, Moore was much later), and it was Mohler’s savvy in his early days that allowed him to make sure Calvinism as a key issue remained Calvinism ‘no big deal’ when dealing with the Convention as a whole, especially in front of those who were conservative but not Calvinist. So it would be interesting to see their comments, but I can probably guess what they would be.

I would have loved to see more coverage of Chapman’s skeptical comments about the GCR and Calvinism. I followed Al Mohler and Russell Moore’s twitter feeds and their just-in-time tweet responses to Chapman’s rant were very interesting.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090624/NEWS06/906240390/1023/NEWS/Southern+Baptists+told+to+reach+out++save+souls

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/NEWS06/906230324&template=printart

Only one motion passed this year. Only one. If you want to know the current story of the SBC, you ought to look at the ONE MOTION THAT PASSED. Amid all the (somewhat embarrassing) culture warrior, denominational traditionalism stuff, the only motion that passed was to form a group to advise the convention on how to realign and return itself to a commitment to the Great Commission, based on a controversial (within the SBC) document called “Toward A Great Commission Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention”.

Dave G is partially correct, that the CBF withdrawal has an effect on the current SBC - but only in that, now that the moderates (broadly defined) have left, the various conservative groups that made up the “Conservative Resurgence” (you didn’t think all conservative SB were the same did you?) have had to figure out what to do with themselves now that they have no common enemy to fight. Some of them have turned on one another in recent years, and some of that denominational infighting was attempted this year.

The real story is that a new coalition of theologically conservative and missions-minded Southern Baptists, led by men in their 50s and younger, are fast becoming the new face of the SBC. So many people voted for the “Great Commission Resurgence” motion that the parliamentarian can actually be heard to say “Wow” on the video. No one expected a 90+% landslide. The young fellas came out this year, and they made their voices heard.

If it is a story that the SBC has suffered minor declines over the last two years, then it ought to be a big story that the sons of the conservatives are standing up, taking control, and talking extensively (and almost exclusively) about a recommitment to biblical missions and evangelism. The names in an SBC story this month should not be Hall and Dockery. The names should be Chapman and Akin.

The CBF was not birthed until 1991. The Southern Baptist Alliance (now Alliance of Baptists) was formed in the late 80’s. It remains an extremely small denomination comprised of 100-120 affiliated (mostly small) Baptist churches. Many moderate Southern Baptist churches did not stop supporting the SBC until 2000 with the passage of the SBC’s Baptist Faith & Message 2000. While the battle was over at the national level by 1990, the war continued at the state level well into the 90s.

The CBF departures would have, for the most part, have been in the late ’80s, not the early 2000 period when the SBC slipped into this slight decline.

Slow growth continued during and even after the civil war period, which essentially was over by, oh, 1989.

Let me stress, again, for those who do not know: My own background is “moderate” Southern Baptist. You may enjoy reading this from 1982, at the heart of the war era:

http://www.tmatt.net/tmatt/freelance/xbapt.php

More to the point, I wonder what results the ideological conflicts of the 90s had to do with this, since one can’t miss the fact that the ‘slip’ in SBC growth began to be tallied after the conflict was over (that is, after the more conservative forces more or less established control and influence in the SBC at large). I was wondering if that would make it into the coverage or if there was a reason it hasn’t been covered.

And yes tmatt, I remember that many said, in its early days, their concern was the CBF would become merely another mainline (read: liberal) denomination.

That map gives “red state/blue state” a whole new meaning.

No, no double standard. Those factors have affected the Episcopalians and other mainliners. So have many other doctrinal factors that apply to the SBC to a much smaller degree. We are also talking about a 2 percent decline or less after years of growth, vs., oh, a 25 to 40 percent decline over the past generation, depending on the church and the region.

Dave G:

I suggest you look up the stats on CBF churches. I think you would find that their demographics put them close to becoming the eighth mainline sister, joining, perhaps, the American Baptists.

Dave G.— the CBF factor is complicated. Lots of CBF churches are dually aligned—meaning they are both Southern Baptists and Cooperative Baptists, and so count in both groups.